[lbo-talk] dixor

andie nachgeborenen andie_nachgeborenen at yahoo.com
Tue Oct 7 07:01:22 PDT 2003


Mike, there cannot be "more evidence" for one rather than another nonsensical proposition. The whole distinction is bogus. That is my point. Even if there isa "gay gene," a single gene such that all and only gays have it, it still doesn't show that "essentialism" or biological determinism is treue and social constructionism is false. Both views are false insofar as they make sense at all.

Any gay or other genes manifest themselves only in environmental contexts. It may be (though we do not know) that some people are predisposed by their genetics to be homosexual or to erngage on homosexual behavior in some circumstances, or in most circu,stances, or in most attainable circumstances. But if it is true, that is all there to be said. The conclusionm would nor refute social constructionism, insofar as anything could, because reference to the the social environment is ineliminable as long as you are talking about sexual behavior involving more than one person at all.

And if sexual behavior is very susceptible to change depending of the environment, that would not mean that the biological contribution is immaterial. For one thing we are talking about sexual behavior, which is biological whatever it is. It is literally incoherent to say that sex could be 100% socially constructed. We are talking about what biological organisms do with biological organs.

I do get tired of having to say this again and and again. It's not so hard, or shouldn;t be. But it is. And yet this is really elementary biology.

jks


>
> ok this is i think sort of right of course but no
> gay gene has been
> found... are 'gay' men genetically different than
> 'hetero' men? of course
> evironment dictates what genes get selected and a
> certain slight amount is
> due to random variation etc. etc. but there's no
> evidence of genetic
> variation....or is there? it seems to me a very
> askable question, just
> find the gay gene or the biological
> difference.......if there's not one it
> would have to be 100% socially constructed. unless
> trees etc. have
> something to do with it. so i guess until the gay
> gene is mapped i'm
> going to tend towards the constructionist
> side...because there's more
> evidence for it.
>
> ~J
>
>
> __________________________________
> Do you Yahoo!?
> The New Yahoo! Shopping - with improved product
> search
> http://shopping.yahoo.com
> ___________________________________
>
http://mailman.lbo-talk.org/mailman/listinfo/lbo-talk

__________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? The New Yahoo! Shopping - with improved product search http://shopping.yahoo.com



More information about the lbo-talk mailing list